Disguised as a regular soldier, Henry uses logos in defending his own actions as King to the soldier Michael Williams. When Williams argues that the King is responsible for the various misfortunes suffered by the troops, Henry rebuts him, stating:
So, if a son that is by his father sent about
merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea,
the imputation of his wickedness, by your rule,
should be imposed upon his father that sent him.
Or if a servant, under his master’s command transporting a sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the business of the master the author of the servant’s damnation. But this is not so. The King is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of his servant, for they purpose not their death when they purpose their services.
Here, the King uses logos to develop his argument, drawing from multiple examples that challenge the logic by which a figure of authority can be blamed for anything that happens to those under their command. He considers a hypothetical father whose son is shipwrecked while conducting family business abroad, and also a master whose servant is killed while transporting money. He builds up his argument methodologically, thinking through various hypothetical scenarios and ultimately concluding that “a King is not bound / to answer the particular endings of his soldiers.” The King, while in disguise, attempts to logically justify his own actions to others, but also perhaps to himself.
